Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Bishop sacrifice

When it comes to sexuality, the Church of England remains uneasily in the closet.

By Nelson Jones Published 17 January 2012 16:37

When it was announced that the Church of England had established an advisory group on human sexuality, consisting of four bishops and a retired civil servant, there was some criticism of the fact that all its members were (ahem) male. But that was only to be expected, and not just because it happens to be a group of bishops, which remains, for the time being at least, an exclusively male club. In Anglican parlance, "human sexuality" is code for, "What do we do about the gays?"

Overt homophobia is increasingly a fringe element in British Christianity these days, represented best by the likes of Stephen Green. Last week, the founder of Christian Voice claimed to have persuaded God to punish Tesco for its support of a gay pride event ("Significantly, we prayed for a drop in their share price").

Meanwhile, the mainstream churches continue to move at varying speeds in the same general direction as the rest of society. Not that you'd realise it from the tone of much of the coverage.

In the case of the Church of England, there are currently two major sticking points, which may or may not be linked: the question of whether civil partnership ceremonies should be allowed to take place in church, and the question of whether openly gay men, even if celibate, should be allowed to become bishops. In both cases the present situation is one of studied hypocrisy.

The second issue has been bubbling away at least since 2003, when the then Canon Jeffrey John (who has a civil partner) failed to be appointed to the relatively lowly post of bishop of Reading, despite having been offered the job in quite clear terms.

There's no doubt that John was shabbily treated. As soon as the appointment was mooted, John became the target of a campaign of ugly homophobia -- even though he described himself as celibate and thus eligible.

Homosexual orientation, the current church doublethink has it, is not sinful in itself; it only becomes sinful if you do something about it. But such subtleties were lost on religious conservatives at home and abroad, who could only recoil in sheer horror at the idea of a "gay bishop".

As a celibate gay man, John would have been in the same position as countless bishops in the past. He would not even, well-informed observers suggested, have been the first gay bishop of Reading. The only material difference was that he had taken advantage of changes in the law to contract a civil partnership. He was, that it, open and honest about his orientation, unwilling to engage in the dissimulation and evasion that was traditional and, in previous eras of repression, mandatory.

As so often happens, the cracks were papered over and a face-saving formula devised. Jeffrey John was made Dean of St Albans, arguably a more high-profile and powerful job than bishop of Reading. But he couldn't call himself "Right Reverend" or wear the pointy hat.

For some unfathomable reason, a gay (but celibate) senior dean is acceptable but a gay (but celibate) junior bishop would be an outrage. That alone says much about the Trollopian mess the Church of England has got itself into.

Now, following a second disappointment in 2010 when he was briefly in the running for the bishopric of Southwark (which is a proper bishopric), it's been reported that Jeffrey John is considering taking legal action for discrimination. Informed observers suggest that he would probably lose.

Certainly the Church of England seems to be quite secure in its legal advice that it has enough of an opt-out from equalities legislation. But even if he doesn't stand much chance of forcing the Church of England to offer him a mitre, Jeffrey John does threaten to shine an unflattering light onto the secretive appointments system that, in the words of the late Dean of Southwark, Colin Slee, "stinks".

It would be hard to argue that anyone has a "right" to be a bishop. Indeed, the notion of going to court to demand episcopal preferment is so out of keeping with traditional norms of clerical behaviour that it might be held to be, in itself, a disqualification for the job.

A bishop doesn't run for election. A bishop is dragged reluctantly to his throne, like Mr Speaker only more convincingly, protesting that he is not worthy, but that since God wants him to do the job it would be worse than churlish to refuse. To be made a bishop is not even to be promoted: it is to submit oneself humbly to a more onerous form of service. That at least is the party line.

Ambition aside, there are other reasons why Jeffrey John is unlikely ever to become a bishop, even though everyone seems to agree that he is well qualified. He has become a divisive figure in a church that values unity, and a clear-cut figure in a church that values ambiguity and opacity.

Whether he intended it or not, he has become the standard-bearer for the cause of gay equality. His appointment, whether or not it split the church, would be seen as highly political and as a piece of deliberate provocation. His tenure would be dominated by rows and walk-outs: at least that's what those who blocked him undoubtedly feared.

At vital moments like this, the Church of England usually puts expediency ahead of principle.

The day will no doubt come when the appointment of an openly gay bishop is no more surprising that then appointment of an openly gay cabinet minister, itself once unthinkable. But when it comes, don't expect any public apologies to Jeffrey John. He committed a far worse sin than homosexuality, after all. He rocked the boat.

Tags: Gay Rights Religion

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

23 comments

Tue, 2012-01-17 18:08 — Keir

It's not so simple. A dean can be ignored, totally, by any Anglican. A bishop can be ignored, too, for all practical purposes. Anglican evangelicals have been doing that for centuries. What evangelicals cannot do is say that they have a homosexual bishop. They lose all credibility as evangelicals if they do that.

Does this matter? Yes, it does, because without evangelicals, the CoE loses more than the essential financial support it receives from evangelicals. It loses its own credibility. The general public may not like evangelicalism, but it knows who goes in for smells and bells, who woffles pretentiously, and who presents the gospel that is the message of a real church.

So, take your pick.

Wed, 2012-01-18 22:51 — Yonmei

"They do permit that, obviously. They just don't like too many words. "

I've seen longer comments. And of course the regular blitz of spamlinked posts which deface NS comments sections on a regular basis.

Tue, 2012-01-17 19:47 — C Baker

The Church of England should grow as a spirtual home for christians and be tolerant and move with the times. It should be open to all. That makes it a base for morality in modern times. A place for people to find comfort in the world. Just as modern Hinduism, Judaism, Budhism and Islam embraces all people, so should the C of E. Religious fanatics are the enemy of religion and the people. If people can only use their faith to marginalise or persecute people, then it is not a moral code that they follow, but a power trip.

In America, Evangelism is a tool of the right to extract money from the poor and to gain power. The fanatics you see on tv, that ask you for your credit card details as a way to contact God. An extension of the fake relic selling priests of medieval times, parodied by writers such as Chaucer. Just as Islamic extremism is a tool to stop muslims reaching their full potential and keep the peole in servitude.

When religion is used to gain power, rather than for personal faith, it becomes tainted by man and used to gain political power and money.

Wed, 2012-01-18 23:08 — Keir

I think the max. character count varies. May be something to do with overall usage.

Sat, 2012-01-21 12:38 — McMac (not verified)

I don't understand why there are any gay clergy at all.

The Church isn't a club, workplace or school, it's an organisation to worship and further the word of God as revealed in the Bible. Religion without the bedrock of belief is just a debating society.

The Bible couldn't be clearer on what God thinks about gay sex.

If gay clergy want a church they should set up a new one with tenets that allows two guys to play hide the sausage without upseting the big beardy bloke upstaires.

Wed, 2012-01-18 11:58 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

Pardon me, but how many openly gay Ayatollahs and imams do you know of? "Modern" means, what, a small percentage of those with a lot of education/living in the developed West? Or all of them living today?
What does the C of E have to do with US Fundiegelicals? Or were they just too tempting a target to leave out?

Wed, 2012-01-18 13:15 — Yonmei

Interesting factoid: I attempted to leave a comment, but it was deleted as spam, I assume because I used the word "gay" too often.

So New Statesman blogs routinely allow bots to post mass-link comments, but don't allow people to talk about homosexuality.

Sat, 2012-01-21 18:39 — Huw Clayton (not verified)

Nelson - a rare lapse from your usual high standards. To point out the blooming obvious errors:

1) Jeffrey John was not in a civil partnership in 2003. How could he be? They only became legal in 2008. He was in quote 'a long term committed relationship', but insisted he was celibate. As an Anglican, I was willing to accept his assurances - unfortunately most others were not. When civil partnerships did become available, he did contract one. Now I have to say, that does, to my mind, raise doubts about whether he is celibate. I may be entirely wrong in that, but if I as a fairly liberal Anglican, have doubts, how do you think it looks to the average cynical Evangelical?

2) The Dean of St Albans is not a higher-profile post than the Bishop of Reading. One has an automatic seat at Synod, the other does not, to name the most obvious difference. One is in charge of large numbers of clergy, the other is not, to name the most important. As for power, he controls the clergy chapter and the cathedral budget (via the Treasurer or Chancellor). As a bishop, he would have been responsible for around 100 clergy and have had immense influence over diocesan expenditure. Relative power? I'll give it to Reading.

However, there is another reason why, when his nomination caused controversy, it had to be withdrawn. Bishops must be a unifying force for their episcopal area (in this case, Berkshire) - if they are divisive, for whatever reason and with whatever merit, they must resign (cf Carl Cooper of St Davids). You yourself hint at that, but without following it to the logical conclusion. Deans, on the other hand, are glorified vicars. As long as they get on well with their congregations, preach decent sermons and keep the fabric in order, they usually do OK. And if they are not liked for any reason, be that personal or theological (or both) nobody has to attend a cathedral, so they can be avoided.

I have always felt sorry for Jeffrey John, but I do not think he has necessarily played his hand as well as he could. Not knowing him, I pass no judgement as to why. However, the idea that he could be in the running for Southwark - a large, influential and wealthy see near the capital - struck me as a ludicrous one, particularly after he was vetoed for Bangor in 2008. I would dearly like to know (a) who put him forward and (b) why his name was (illegally) leaked - causing enormous trouble and heartache to many, including Colin Slee, but surely most of all to John himself.

Finally, Keir, you are entirely wrong in your assertions re the apostolic succession. If you look at the 39 articles, which all ordinands must sign, and the Nicene Creed, which all communicants must recite, you will see how wrong you are.

Wed, 2012-01-18 13:27 — Cian Brennan (not verified)

Bishops represent the apostolic succession - Deans do not. So allowing a Senior Dean, but not a Junior Bishop does make sense (although, not allowing a celibate man to be appointed to any position doesn't make sense in the first place).

Wed, 2012-01-18 13:28 — Keir

They do permit that, obviously. They just don't like too many words.

Brevity is probably a good goal, anyway.

Wed, 2012-01-18 13:41 — Keir

'Bishops represent the apostolic succession'

No, they don't. The CoE has never, like the Vatican, been suicidal by claiming what cannot be claimed. Even if it was so inane, it would have to explain the verdict of its own bishops and archbishops that the Vatican is the seat of antichrist!

No fascism, please.

Sat, 2012-01-21 21:45 — Keir

What the CoE needs is more exorcism.

Wed, 2012-01-18 14:48 — Cian Brennan (not verified)

@Keir I think you may be confusing the Anglican and Calvinist traditions - you note that the Church Of England recognises the ordinations of the Church in Rome - hardly the actions of a group convinced it is lead by the anti-christ. And their broad agreement on the apostolic succession in the Anglican-Roman Catholic International succession.

Fri, 2012-01-27 00:39 — Keir

'And here we have a clear confirmation of everything I wrote'

Don't take it out on me. That's what you did to yourself, Dennis. You didn't shoot yourself in the foot; you had a higher aim.

Don't get mad, as you say. :)

Wed, 2012-01-18 15:16 — Keir

There is nothing official about any of that. It is just right-wing propaganda, that most Anglicans ignore. If they wanted to be Romanists, they'd be Romanists, with all the dubious repute that goes with it.

An Anglican archbishop long ago declared that there was no-one who could claim 'succession' from any apostle. It is therefore the mark of the scoundrel, if not the criminal, even to make that claim if it has any material effect on others.

As its own teachers have long observed, there is nothing but Parliament to stop the CoE from adopting a Presbyterian or even Congregational polity. But for an accident of history, that would have occurred anyway.

No doubt right-wingers who read this find discomfiture at the idea of Christians ignoring bishops. The left is not left alone, is it.

Mon, 2012-01-23 15:32 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

Your ordinations aren't recognized by the Orthodox, either. Funny that you complain about this, because you don't recognize Presbyterian or Methodist or Baptist ordinations, yet you bitch (an appropriate word, given the gross over-representation of gays in the clergy) about how the Pope disrespects you.
Religion is such a stupid game that it's no wonder people are just walking off the field.
Why not disestablish this group of clowns?

Mon, 2012-01-23 15:35 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

How can people be shocked at the high percentage of gays in the clergy? What other job demands drag as its uniform? Plus you get to have those theatrical performances with choreography and chorus and special effects like smoke?
Why not make it a gay-exclusive profession and be honest with yourselves?

Mon, 2012-01-23 17:37 — Keir

'Funny that you complain about this'

No Anglican who matters complains. Any who matter regard Orthodox as much in need of the gospel as Catholics, including Herr Ratzinger, who are as much in need as the ordinary Joe.

Now those who have read the thread will either recognise this, or dispute it, as some have attempted to do. But there are inevitably those who have not bothered to read it, or who have read it with close interest but pretended not to have read it at all.

And surely, Americans need to find out what they are talking about before opening their mouths on UK matters. Cheap and ignorant remarks do their reputation no good. And it's not the most enviable reputation as it is.

Thu, 2012-01-26 14:37 — Keir

'Keir, not that it matters, but perhaps that bridge goes two ways.'

Oh, it's true, there is a clear centre/center line all the way across, but traffic seems to be on only one side of it.

'As an American who has spent much time in the UK I have always been amazed at the wild stereotypes and bizarre notions about America held by the English.'

And have you done anything but confirm them in their opinion? Maybe the Brits are right. Maybe Rabbie Burns, their much valued bard, had a word for it:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

'life and culture in America based solely on a visit to Florida'

It's true, Orlando is the first stop, but for many it turns out to be only the gateway to fantasy.

'the wild stereotypes and bizarre notions about America held by the English.'

What, like the USA is the incubator of crackpot religious cults? Is that a fallacy, after all? We do apologise, Dennis.

'a few documentaries (usually devoted to the subject of hillbillies, swamps and rednecks.)'

Rednecks like Mitt Romney? No, we get our news via Fox News, Dennis, and foxes always tell the truth.

'Our branch of Anglicanism'

It's not, theologically speaking, even Anglicanism, since it lobbed the 39 Articles into the museum. It's a maverick bunch of wannabes that most of the Anglican Communion discounts, and even Americans now view with disdain. And that's saying something. Maybe the sky fell in, but your heads are so far into the clouds that you didn't notice.

'Nonetheless, your bishops and archbishops have felt free to come to our shores and lecture us about it'

Good heavens, Dennis, surely Christ's heirs to the apostles must be treated as the Lord's anointed? What are you, Americans, or Amalekites?

'in much of American culture hypocrisy is seen as the ultimate sin'

There are no sins in the USA except telling the truth.

Thu, 2012-01-19 19:00 — Keir

There's never a right time to be in the wrong place. There are, apparently, already homosexual bishops in the CoE. The difference in this case is that J. John wanted to establish a precedent for openly homosexual bishops. So, call it 'rocking the boat'; or call it 'trying it on'.